MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409795100 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-426

Classification and identification of tempered flexural organization of spring steel based on improved GLCM-Resnet18

2025· article· en· W4409795100 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpring (device)Identification (biology)Forensic engineeringEngineeringEcologyStructural engineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metallographic structure is generally judged by professionals based on existing knowledge and work experience, and the judgment results are somewhat subjective.In recent years, convolutional neural network (CNN) in deep learning methods can learn complex features in original images, widely used in the field of image classification and recognition.However, CNN require a large number of sample training to achieve good prediction results.In order to make up for the shortcomings of the subjectivity of manual judgment, and the problem that the data sets for specific problems in the field of materials engineering are often small, this study uses the grey level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) to count the texture features of the original image, and then uses the standard Resnet18, Resnet50 and improved Resnet18 frameworks for migration training to classify and identify the grey level co-occurrence matrix of the troostite structure, in order to solve the problem of small metallographic image data sets and realize deep learning modeling of small samples.Using 490 microstructure images of spring steel tempered troostite collected by professional technicians, and each level have 98 images.The grey level co-occurrence matrix is used to count its texture information, thereby obtaining the training data set.The experimental results on this dataset show that the classification accuracy of the improved GLCM-Resnet18 can reach up to 96.52%, the highest accuracy of GLCM-Resnet18 is 95.65%, and the highest accuracy of GLCM-Resnet50 is 90.72%.It can be considered that the improved GLCM-Resnet18 method has more precise training accuracy and can basically meet the requirements of industrial applications.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207